Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:16:16 -0500
From:   "dennis@kernel.org" <dennis@kernel.org>
To:     Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Cc:     "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>, "cl@linux.com" <cl@linux.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "van.freenix@gmail.com" <van.freenix@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu: km: no need to consider pcpu_group_offsets[0]
Message-ID: <20190225151616.GB49611@dennisz-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20190224132518.20586-1-peng.fan@nxp.com>
 <20190224132518.20586-2-peng.fan@nxp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190224132518.20586-2-peng.fan@nxp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 01:13:50PM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> percpu-km is used on UP systems which only has one group,
> so the group offset will be always 0, there is no need
> to subtract pcpu_group_offsets[0] when assigning chunk->base_addr
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> ---
>  mm/percpu-km.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/percpu-km.c b/mm/percpu-km.c
> index 66e5598be876..8872c21a487b 100644
> --- a/mm/percpu-km.c
> +++ b/mm/percpu-km.c
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ static struct pcpu_chunk *pcpu_create_chunk(gfp_t gfp)
>  		pcpu_set_page_chunk(nth_page(pages, i), chunk);
>  
>  	chunk->data = pages;
> -	chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages) - pcpu_group_offsets[0];
> +	chunk->base_addr = page_address(pages);
>  
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&pcpu_lock, flags);
>  	pcpu_chunk_populated(chunk, 0, nr_pages, false);
> -- 
> 2.16.4
> 

While I do think you're right, creating a chunk is not a part of the
critical path and subtracting 0 is incredibly minor overhead. So I'd
rather keep the code as is to maintain consistency between percpu-vm.c
and percpu-km.c.

Thanks,
Dennis